Legislation

“Ban the box” legislation gains momentum

Across the country, municipalities and states are enacting legislation called “ban the box” which generally prohibits employers from asking job candidates about their criminal histories on applications. The legislation also makes it unlawful for a covered employer to take any adverse action against an individual on the basis of an arrest or criminal accusation that did not result in a conviction. The states of California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Mexico have enacted some form of the legislation along with more than 26 cities and counties in Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin and Washington. (A complete list of municipalities that have “banned the box” is posted at
http://www.nelp.org/page/-/SCLP/2010/BantheBoxcurrent.pdf?nocdn=1).

However, except for Hawaii and Massachusetts, the legislation has been limited to public employers, or public employers and vendors and contractors serving public entities. The city of Philadelphia, which is the most recent addition to this growing list, is the first municipality to pass a law that covers private employers with 10 or more employees. Below are some jurisdictional highlights of the enacted legislation:

  • Hawaii and Massachusetts private and public employers cannot consider felony convictions that are more than 10 years old. And in Massachusetts, employers are not permitted to consider misdemeanor convictions that are more than five years old.
  • Hawaii and the cities of Chicago, Hartford, and Cincinnati allow an employer to ask about an applicant’s criminal record only after a conditional offer of employment has been extended.
  • Chicago, San Francisco, and Boston require a public employer denying employment on the basis of a conviction to justify its decision based on EEOC’s guidelines which include the nature and gravity of the crime, the time that has passed since the conviction, and the relativity of the crime to the position.

Proponents of “ban the box” are confident that the legislation will be a significant factor in lowering recidivism rates, as it will allow applicants to demonstrate their skills and qualifications prior to disclosing criminal histories. And many experts say that such laws will expand beyond the borders of the United States in the very near future.

October 17th, 2011|Categories: Employment Decisions, Legislation|Tags: , , |

More states are restricting credit reports for employment purposes

Connecticut has joined five other states (Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, and Washington) that, with some exceptions, prohibit the use of credit reports in employment decisions. Effective October 1, 2011, S.B. 361 will ban many employers from using credit information in determining whether to deny employment to an applicant, terminate an employee, decide compensation, or evaluate other terms and conditions of employment. Financial institutions, as well as employers who are required to obtain credit reports under federal or state law, are excluded from the Act’s provisions

There are certain exceptions to the S.B. 361 prohibitions. Employers may request or use credit reports when such information is related to a “bona fide purpose that is substantially job-related.” The bona fide purpose exception generally applies to positions involving money handling or other sensitive job duties. If an employer requests or uses credit information for a bona fide purpose, it must disclose its intent to do so in writing to the employee or applicant.

As in Connecticut’s S.B. 361, employers in the other states that have passed employment-related credit report restriction laws need to ensure that their hiring, retention, and promotion practices fall within the guidelines of their legislation.

September 13th, 2011|Categories: Employment Decisions, Legislation|Tags: , |

New FINRA rule for reporting requirements

FINRA’s Rule 4530, modeled after NASD Rule 3070 and NYSE Rule 351, went into effect on July 1, 2011. The rule requires all member firms to:

  • report to FINRA certain specified events and quarterly statistical and summary information regarding written customer complaints, and
  • file with FINRA documents of certain criminal actions, civil complaints and arbitration claims.

A member firm has 30 calendar days to report to FINRA violations of any securities, insurance, commodities, financial or investment laws, rules, regulations or standards of conduct committed by the firm or its associated persons.  The 30-day period begins when the firm has concluded, or reasonably should have concluded, that a violation has occurred. Below is a summary of the provision.

  • Firms are not required to report every instance of non-compliant conduct, but they must report conduct that has widespread or potential widespread impact to the firm, its customers or the markets, or conduct that arises from a material failure of the firm’s systems, policies or practices involving numerous customers, multiple errors or significant dollar amounts.
  • Violative conduct by an associated person must be reported only when it has widespread or potential widespread impact to the firm, its customers or the markets; conduct that has a significant monetary result on a member firm(s), customer(s) or market(s); or multiple instances of any violative conduct.
  • The “reasonably should have concluded” standard is applied on a good faith basis (by the firm) if a reasonable person would have concluded that a violation has occurred; if a reasonable person would not have concluded that a violation occurred, then the matter is not reportable. Firms must establish who, within the firm, is responsible for making such determinations. Stating that a violation was of a nature that did not merit consideration by the responsible person is not a defense to a failure to report such conduct.
  • The reporting obligation and internal review processes set forth under other rules – eg., FINRA Rule 3130 – are mutually exclusive.
  • While internal review processes may point to a firm’s determination that a specific violation has occurred, they do not by themselves lead to the conclusion that the matter is reportable – e.g., FINRA would not view a discussion in an internal audit report regarding the need for enhanced controls in a particular area, standing alone, as determinative of a reportable violation.  An internal audit finding would serve only as one factor, among others, that a firm should consider in determining whether a reportable violation occurred.
  • Certain disciplinary actions taken by a firm against an associated person must be reported under a separate provision, rather than under the internal conclusion provision.

In addition to the above “internal conclusions” obligations, the new rules for “other reportable events” as per NASD Rule 3070 and NYSE Rule 351, have been modified somewhat in Rule 4530. For example, more customer disputes may have to be reported, as the new rule will now include attorney’s fees and interest penalties in customer settlements or awards with damages against a broker of $15,000 or more and against a firm of $25,000 or more, thus lowering the calculations threshold for reporting requirements.

August 16th, 2011|Categories: Legislation|Tags: , , |

Subcommittee approves legislation to protect consumers against data theft

On July 20, 2011, the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade approved legislation to protect consumers from cyber attacks and identity theft. The Secure and Fortify Electronic Data Act (H.R. 2577), or SAFE Data Act now moves to the full Energy and Commerce Committee for consideration.

The Act would require all businesses that maintain personal information to implement security programs, which, among other mandates, would include a protocol to notify affected individuals of an information security breach. Preempting over 45 existing state information security and breach notification laws, the Act would task the Federal Trade Commission with developing the security rules.

According to its author, Chairman Bono Mack, the Act will enhance protection of personal information by establishing uniform national standards for data security and data breach notification. The preemption provision also would provide certainty for businesses in addressing information security breaches that now are subject to the multitude of state requirements.

Some legislators and advocates have criticized the proposed law as too narrow, as it would require breach notifications only when an individual’s name, telephone number or credit card number is compromised along with a Social Security number, driver’s license number or other government-issued ID. With some state laws requiring notification when, for example, a credit card number, financial account number, Social Security number, or biometric data alone (without the individuals name) is compromised, the practical notification threshold under current state breach notification laws may be significantly lower than that proposed by the Safe Data Act.

July 29th, 2011|Categories: Legislation|Tags: , |

U.K. Bribery Act now slated to take effect July 1, 2011

After receiving widespread criticism for the lack of guidance and compliance clarification, the U.K. Bribery Act of 2010 (Bribery Act) originally scheduled for implementation in April 2011, is now set to take effect July 1, 2011. The act’s jurisdiction extends to commercial organizations incorporated or formed in the U.K. or “which carr

[y] on a business or a part of a business in the U.K. irrespective of the place of incorporation or formation.” Determination of such existence will be made by the U.K. courts and will require “a demonstrable business presence.” The official guide states that an organization will not be deemed to be carrying on a business in the U.K. merely by virtue of having its securities listed on the London Stock Exchange or by having a U.K. subsidiary.

Unlike the anti-bribery provisions of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which focus primarily on corruption involving non-U.S. government officials, the Bribery Act  widens its scope to prohibit domestic and international bribery across both private and public sectors. And while the FCPA allows exceptions for facilitation payments (generally small payments to lower-level officials for “routine government actions,”) the Bribery Act does not. These payments were illegal under the previous legislation and the common law, but the difference under the Bribery Act is that non-U.K. organizations are broadly subjected to these restrictions for the first time.

The Bribery Act specifically criminalizes the offering, promising or giving a bribe (active bribery) and the requesting, agreeing to receive or accepting a bribe (passive bribery) to obtain or retain business or secure a financial or other advantage. It also contains a provision whereby an organization that fails to prevent bribery by anyone associated with the organization can be charged under the Bribery Act unless it can establish the defense of having implemented preventive “adequate procedures.” The official guide recommends the following six principles as foundation for developing “adequate procedures” to prevent bribery:

  • Proportionality – Actions should be proportionate to the risk, nature, size and complexity of the organization.
  • Top-level Commitment – Board of directors, owners, officers or equivalent top level- management should establish and promote a culture where bribery is never acceptable and be committed to preventing bribery, both within the organization and with anyone associated with the organization externally.
  • Risk Assessment – Various risk exposures, both internal and external, such as country of operation, business sector, types of transaction, new markets, and business partnerships should be evaluated and documented on an ongoing basis.
  • Due Diligence – Proportionate, risk-based approach to due diligence procedures assessing existing and proposed relationships should be taken to ensure trustworthy associations and mitigate identified bribery risks.
  • Communication – Appropriate channels of communication, awareness and training, both internal and external, on anti-bribery policies and procedures should be implemented and evaluated on a regular basis.
  • Monitoring and Review – Anti-bribery policies and procedures should be monitored on an ongoing basis and amended as quickly as possible when activities and risks change.

The penalties for violating the Bribery Act are severe, with individuals facing up to 10 years in prison and organizations facing unlimited fines. Violations also may result in damaging collateral consequences such as director disqualification, ineligibility for public contracts, and asset confiscation.

 

May 9th, 2011|Categories: International, Legislation|Tags: , , |

Investment advisers miss deadline for filing new “plain English” ADV Part 2

For most investment advisers, the deadline for preparing and submitting the new Form ADV Part 2 was March 31, 2011, and many missed it, according to industry sources. All investment advisers registered with the SEC are mandated to file the new Form ADV Part 2 or disclosure brochure within 90 days of their fiscal year end. For the majority, the fiscal year ends on December 31, which means that the new form should have been filed by March 31, 2011. Most state securities regulators have ratified similar requirements.

Securities lawyers indicate that investment advisers who missed the filing deadline are likely in violation of several investment advisory rules, and may be subjected to possible actions by the regulators, ranging from warnings and fines to revocation of registration. At a minimum, a failure to submit the new form may flag the adviser as lacking strong compliance controls and requiring heightened scrutiny.

The new form rulings, adopted by the SEC in October 2010, required 18 sections on fees, soft-dollar pay arrangements, investment strategies and disciplinary histories, along with a supplement detailing each adviser’s background. An SEC spokesperson said that the changes “will allow clients access to information about advisers of a wholly different character and quality than was available under the previous regime. It will enable investors to better evaluate their current advisers, or comparison-shop for an adviser that best serves a particular need. Most significantly, this disclosure may result in advisers modifying their business practices and compensation policies which may pose conflicts, in ways that better serve the interests of the clients.” For more information, see http://www.sec.gov/answers/formadv.htm.

April 28th, 2011|Categories: Legislation|Tags: , |

Some call the new U.K. Bribery Act “The FCPA on Steroids”

The new law, called the Bribery Act, takes effect in April 2011. It resembles the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) which bars companies that trade on U.S. exchanges from bribing foreign government officials to gain a business advantage, but the Bribery Act goes beyond the FCPA by not just prohibiting illicit payments to foreign officials, but also bribes between private business people. It holds even if the individual who makes the payment does not realize that the transaction was a bribe.

And the Act’s impact extends beyond U.K.-based companies. It applies to entities with any “business presence” in the U.K., regardless of where the act of briberyoccurs. It also covers bribery by any person with “close connections” to the U.K., including both British citizens and citizens of others countries “ordinarily residing” in the U.K.

According to the Ministry of Justice, the law basically creates three criminal offenses: 1) giving or accepting a bribe designed to induce someone to perform a function improperly; 2) bribing a foreign public official with the intention of obtaining a business advantage, and 3) failing to prevent bribery.

Legal experts say that the most significant development in the law is a company’s strict liability for failing to prevent bribery (by an employee, a joint-venture partner or a subsidiary.) Under the Act, the company can be penalized with an unlimited fine for such actions, and further can be held liable for the acts of bribery by a person “associated” with the company who is trying to obtain a business advantage for the company. And unlike the FCPA, the Act does not exempt from prosecution what are commonly known as “facilitation payments.” (In some parts of the world, it is common practice to pay a small amount of money to ensure that an otherwise legitimate permit is approved in a timely manner.)

While the British government released some draft guidance on the Act in late 2010 and more definitive text is expected in 2011, it is unclear how vigorously the law will be enforced or what resources will be committed to investigating and prosecuting the suspected violations. Ultimately, it will be up to the courts to determine the true impact of the new law.

January 5th, 2011|Categories: International, Legislation|Tags: , , , |

More on credit reports for hiring decisions

According to September 2010 congressional testimony by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), credit checks are a useful tool to “assess the skills, abilities, work habits and integrity of potential hires.” However, SHRM states that only 20 percent of employers conduct credit checks on all applicants. Fifty-seven percent of these employers perform the checks only after contingent offers, and 30 percent after job interviews; 65 percent allow job candidates to explain their credit results before the hiring decision is made, and 22 percent accept explanations after the hiring decision.

A bill in the U.S. House, called the Equal Employment for All Act, would amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to ban the use of credit checks on prospective and current employees for employment purposes, with the following exceptions:

  • jobs that require national security or Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. clearance;
  • jobs in state or local government that require the use of credit reports;
  • supervisory, managerial, and executive positions in financial institutions.

The states of Illinois, Oregon, Hawaii, and Washington already have passed laws to prevent employers from using credit reports in employment decisions.

November 30th, 2010|Categories: Employment Decisions, Legislation|Tags: , , , , |

Massachusetts employers cannot ask about criminal history on initial job applications

As of November 4, 2010, Massachusetts employers are prohibited from asking about criminal records on the initial job application, except for positions for which a federal or state law, regulation or accreditation disqualifies an applicant based on a conviction, or if the employer is mandated by a federal or state law or regulation not to employ
individuals who have been convicted of a crime.

The new law also has two provisions that will become effective February 6, 2012. Under the first provision, an employer in possession of criminal record information must disclose that information to the applicant, prior to asking about it. And similar to the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, if an employer decides not to hire an
applicant in whole or in part because of the criminal record, the employer must provide the applicant with a copy of the record.

The second provision requires employers who conduct five or more criminal background investigations annually to implement and maintain a written criminal record information policy. The policy, at minimum, must specify procedures for (1) notifying applicants of the potential for an adverse decision based on the criminal record, (2) providing
a copy of the criminal record and the written policy to applicants, and (3) dispensing information to applicants about the process for correcting errors on their criminal record.

The law imposes penalties (including imprisonment for up to one year or a fine of up to $5,000 for an individual and $50,000 for a company) for those who request or require an applicant to provide a copy of his/her criminal record except under conditions authorized by law, and prohibits harassment of the subject of the criminal record (punishable by imprisonment of up to one year, or a fine of not more than $5,000.)

November 16th, 2010|Categories: Criminal Activity, Employment Decisions, Legislation|Tags: , , , , |

Spotlight on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) compliance

All U.S. firms seeking to do business in foreign markets must be familiar with the FCPA. Enacted in 1977 and amended several times since then, the FCPA generally states that if a foreign company has any footprint in the U.S., even simply wiring money through it, that company is subject to prosecution if involved in corrupt payments to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or keeping business.

The FCPA applies to any individual, firm, officer, director, employee, or agent of a firm and any stockholder acting on behalf of a firm. U.S. parent corporations also may be held liable for the acts of foreign subsidiaries where they authorized, directed, or controlled the activity in question, as can U.S. citizens or residents, who were employed by or acting on behalf of such foreign subsidiaries. The same provisions essentially extend to intermediaries which include joint venture partners or agents.

Between 2006 and 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), both of which have jurisdiction over the FCPA, initiated more enforcement actions than in the first 28 years of the FCPA’s existence. And the financial penalties for violations have skyrocketed. In December 2008, Siemens AG, Europe’s largest engineering firm, pleaded guilty to violating U.S. anti-corruption laws and was ordered to pay $1.6 billion to settle bribery charges in U.S. and Germany.

To ensure FCPA compliance, the DOJ recommends that companies exercise risk-based due diligence to ensure that they are doing business with reputable and qualified entities and representatives. The due diligence process, at minimum, should include investigating potential foreign representatives and joint venture partners to determine their general reputation and qualifications, whether they have personal or professional ties to the government, the reputation of their clients, and their history with the U.S. Embassy or Consulate, local bankers and other business associates. Additionally, the U.S. firm should be aware of “red flags,” i.e., unusual payment patterns or financial arrangements, indicators of corruption in the country or the particular industry, or refusal by the foreign joint venture partner or representative to provide certification that it will not engage in actions to further an unlawful offer, promise, or payment to a foreign public official and not cause the firm to be in violation of the FCPA (such as paying unusually high commissions, lacking transparency in expenses and accounting records, or retaining a joint venture partner or representative that has been referred by a government official.)

Capturing recent headlines are the changes to the FCPA-related compliance and ethics provisions of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations that will become effective in November 2010. The amendments provide that a meaningful compliance program requires, among other actions, that when criminal conduct is detected, the company implement “reasonable steps to respond appropriately … to prevent further similar conduct.” An annotation to that provision specifies that the actions include “assessing the compliance and ethics program and making modifications necessary to ensure that the program is effective … and possibly including the use of an outside professional advisor to ensure adequate assessment and implementation of any modifications.”

The Guidelines also state that a board must be knowledgeable about the content and operation of the company’s compliance program and must “exercise reasonable oversight with respect to the implementation and effectiveness of its compliance and ethics.” Likewise, the DOJ’s prosecution guidelines consider whether the board exercises independent reviews of the compliance program and whether it is provided with information sufficient to enable the exercise of independent judgment. Directors have similar “Caremark” oversight duties arising under case law and various other directives, such as stock exchange rules, Sarbanes-Oxley, and audit committee charters.

October 14th, 2010|Categories: Legislation|Tags: , , |
© 2012- SCHERZER INTERNATIONAL | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Go to Top